Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-08-01

nUnS ~ 6pEesslhE 1HeiT
Views.
Big stone City. OAK, July 29-
Wednesdays proceedings Of the editor
torial convention were enlivened by o
discussion of the case OF the Hnronite,
and the appointment of . committee TO
consider the matter. Elk Gov. Pierce
was called upon III the course of the pre-
caedipgs, and brought the question
squarely before the convention. By re-
quest OF many members of the assoeis-
tion, his speech is given below. He
said:
This is not a question Of party. OF
politics, or Of personal likes or disiikes.
IL is not 0 question Of whether the
Huronite WAS lustifiable or unjustifiabie
In its report or the trial. That paper
is answerable st law in an action for
damages or In criminal proceedings, if
1t has offended. The point is, whether
an editor can be punished without being
granted q trial before an impartial
Judge and jury OF his countrymen for
comments made On u case which
is decided-which is res adjudjco-
when whatever structures he NAV
make cannot possibly influence the set
Element Of the case. / make no attack
upon Judge Spencer personally. Ii a
brief acquaintance with that gentleman.
I have been so fayorably impressed that
l am 10th to saya word in complaint of
his action, even now, when I feel that 1t
is supversive of the dearest principles of
Justice. Butt would regard myself as
criminal if / failed here or elsewhere to
lift my voice III protest against an as
sumption so utterly u~nwarrantel and SO
suggestive Of aarestrained tyranny.
Gov. Pierce then gave a brief history
Of the origino of the Law of contempt, and
showed that, even under kingly rule,
punishment was confined to offepses
committed in the presence OF the court.
Proceeding he said:
had supposed at first that the pro-
ceeding at Huron was a statutory one,
but / find on examination that this
could NOT possibly have been the case,
Our statutes makes contempt q mis-
demeanor, for which definite proceed
ings are prescribed and o definite pun
ishment provided. In this case, however,
Ia rule was made upon the defendant 10
show cause why he should not be sum.
marily punished by the very Judge
q gainst whom the offensive publication
WAS made. Such a proceeding is not
authorized by statutes OF this Territory
and must therefore, have been taken
under the general powers Of the common
law. Let us see then, what ~offenses are
punishable 'as contempt by courts under
the common law.
"A contempt of court" says Cooley,
Haexists where one ID guilty OF conduch
which directly tends to impede the per-
.formanee OF public duty by o competent
tribunal there in session or about to
convene. The authority is q very deli
cate one, and requires to be exercised
with Ersat oars and caution. Assaults
in preaence OF the court, refusal to be
called as q witness, neglect to obey
orders and processes are contempts, Tt
has also been held in many cases that
the publication OF N article comment
ing on proceedings in court then pend
ing and undetermined or on the couxt in
relation thereto, made at q time and
under circumstances to effect the course
OF Justice in Its proceedings, and obYlous-
~ intended for that purpose, may be
punished as contempt, but this has been
denied. The English courts have in ex-
oeptional cases forbidden the publica-
tion of the proceedings of q triai and
have punished the disobedience oil the
order. But even this power is modern
in itH origin. Washburne, in his work
on criminal law, says that such a power
was never assumed until 1906, when in
the trial OF Lord Melville for treason,
SUCH publication was forbidden. Kent
says that even the limited powers OF the
English courts to punish summarily for
contempt have been much restrained OF
late and il was held in the case Of King
vs. Faulkner that enc Judge of the court
OF bankruptcy sitting alone had no
power to punish for contempt, however
gross and personal. tSee cases cited in
Vol. 1, 3Gl. Psnnsylvania while provid.
ing punishments for contempt, requires
an indictment and trial by jury for all
publications out OF coust, even those
made pending o trial. Edward Living.
stone, in preparing the penal code OF
Louisiana, expressly provided that ever
contempts committed in presence OF the
court must be punished, If at all, by in.
diotmant and trial by Jury. Washburu
ennu5erates the following persons as
liable to summary punishment for con-
tempt: attorneys, sheriffs, bRiIiffs,
parties to suits, witnesses end Jurors.
aAnd in n case Kent has eaid., re-
marks Washbnra, that every illegal in
reference with the process or proceed
inRs OF the oonrt ia clearly contempt OF
such court. In zone CASE only as if il
were carrying the principle pretty far to
say even "that interference with the
process or proceedings OF o court" was
contempt. Here in Dakota we have
not questioned that. We grant tina,
the court must necessarily have power